Search results

The thing you later refer to: The thing which triggers "on a hit" effects. But if we follow this exact same reasoning, "on a hit, the target takes damage" would work the same way, and would result in attacks which knock someone out preventing uncanny dodge, since it goes after the hit. And...

The intent is. People don't add extra words that don't change meaning.

Yeah. And the thing is, if you just go by what's said, there's an ambiguity. If you assume that the ambiguity is resolved by a general principle, then there is a specific timing somewhere even though it wasn't specified... But things are inconsistent. Otherwise it's just plain weird. Which is...

But the reduction in hit points is part of "the hit". And we've been told that the hit takes effect before uncanny dodge does. So the reduction in hit points should take effect before uncanny dodge gets to fire. Except when it doesn't. There is a bit of an ambiguity here.

Well, that's the thing. Crawford agrees that an attack which knocks you out by doing hit point damage should not prevent uncanny dodge. But that implies that uncanny dodge is taking effect before the "hit" is completed.

That's not quite true. We have a Jeremy Crawford answer that uncanny dodge can be applied to a hit which would have knocked the rogue unconscious. Since unconscious creatures can't use reactions, you can use the reaction before the hit's effects are applied.

That was not just "I am right, you are wrong", it was a succinct summary of the points which had been clearly established and to which no meaningful rebuttal had been offered.

Ice which is not a worn or carried object would be taking fire damage, same as everything else. Melted or turned to steam, depending on the amount of damage done. Seems straightforward. Depending on how you apply the effect, you might conclude that the clothes get burned if and only if the...

Gricean Maxims. The words are there to communicate something. There is no reason for the spell description to state anything about damage to items if it just wants to say items can be damaged, because we already have the fire rules. That it goes out of its way to identify some items as affected...

The general rules for fire do not trump the fact that the fireball spell tells you how it works, and it damages items which are not worn or carried.

I would say that the "neither worn nor carried" language strongly implies that items which are worn or carried are not affected.

I actually had roughly this argument once on the PF rules forums. Here, though, it's not a houserule. It's a ruling. DM's call what ignites what.

No paradox, really, any more than there is with any other thing. You can always get shield off right away, when you know that you're about to be hit. And Crawford's response gives us more insight into order of effects. So... 1. Hit. 2. Effects from hit. 3. Damage from hit. 4. Effects from...

I think the last one should be "Constitution & Wisdom", and yes, this parallel works quite well. There's one force, one agility, and one durability stat in each set.

Because they are driven by their own conviction, not by their faith in a divine entity. Paladins don't need a patron.

If you don't have a consistent model for why rulings go a given way, you can't make consistent rulings in future cases, of which there are always plenty.

I would say that there's an implicit implication that, if this effect which denies reactions prevents you from using uncanny dodge, then all other effects which deny reactions and don't explicitly say otherwise also prevent you from using uncanny dodge. I mean, yes, it's an inference, but so's...

So the implication would be that if damage would knock you out, you can't use uncanny dodge on it, since you can't take reactions when unconscious.

This is about where I realized there was not much point in this. It is the game definition of clerics that they are granted their powers by the forces they serve, and that they are conduits, not using their own force. PHB, page 58, spellcasting: "As a conduit for divine power, you can cast...

Well, that seems like an answer.